How do these pistols stack up against each other these days? Obviously, the Taurus is a copy of the Beretta design, but both companies seem to be going in different directions with them.
One thing I like about the Taurus is that, unlike Berreta (except for a few select models), the Taurai use a frame mounted safety.
The problem with the frame-mounted safety is the way it's configured. Up is safe, middle is fire, down is decock. Problem is, if you have it cocked & locked, and mash the safety lever down to the decock position, and hold it there, the pistol is disabled. It could potentially happen in a stressful situation.
If I were in charge, I'd make two versions, thus. The decock version would just "press down to decock", like on the FNP-40 pistol. The SA version would enable cocked & locked carry, but if you wanted to carry hammer down, you'd have to manually lower the hammer, like on a CZ-75.
Note that the Taurus now comes standard with a 17 round magazine.
The other choice is, of course, the Beretta. Beretta recently came out with a standard-frame gun (as opposed to a vertec) that has a rail for mounting a weapon light. Of course, older Surefire type lights that don't require a rail are still available, but they're big by current standards.
Beretta still clings to the two-stage, slide mounted safety. They make a decock only version, and in this case, the position of the lever become less important. (I understand that the military requires a manual safety for its pistols, and that's why Beretta makes 'em that way.)
So, my question is this. Taurus' quality has been constantly improving. I've handled a Beretta 92FS and a Taurus togther, side by side, and couldn't tell any significant difference in fit or finish.
Could it be that the Taurus is every bit as good a gun as the Beretta now? Any thoughts?
I should say that I don't include military Berettas in my assessment, just because typically, the ones I've handled have been disappointing.
If you enjoyed reading about "Taurus PT92 vs Beretta 92" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
July 3, 2006, 03:25 AM
Well, here's how I see it.
I've never heard anyone ask if a Beretta 92 is just as good as a PT92. Think about it. ;)
My advice is that if you want a Beretta, you should buy one. Don't buy a Taurus if you want a Beretta, or vice versa.
July 3, 2006, 03:47 AM
How is the weapon disabled if it decocked, its double action just pull the trigger and bang
July 3, 2006, 04:56 AM
I don't want either one. I'm just curious.
If you hold the Taurus safety lever down, as you may do after quickly swiping it off safe, when your adrenaline is pumping, the trigger is disabled. If you release the lever, then yes, you've got just a double action trigger pull.
Personally, I don't think a manual safety and a decocking device should be the same lever.
July 3, 2006, 09:33 AM
I prefer the frame mounted safety of the Taurus, too. Performance-wise, I think it's a dead heat between the two. As far as fit and finish, Beretta still holds a significant edge IMO. Beretta also has an edge with quality control/customer service. Reports about Taurus' QC/CS (on this forum and TFL) have been decidedly mixed. I haven't had any problems with my PT92 but if I did, it'd be a bit more comforting to know that the company would stand four-square behind it's product.
July 3, 2006, 10:04 AM
The cocked and locked option makes the Taurus much more attractive (the absurdly long first pull of the Beretta has always disqualified it for me), and Gun Tests preferred the Taurus over the Beretta in a recent side-by-side test.
But the Beretta is one of the most reliable models in the world, and Taurus QC issues are legendary (although I haven't seen complaints about their 92).
For me, the matter is moot, since the CZ 75B does everything better than either.
July 3, 2006, 11:21 AM
"Could it be that the Taurus is every bit as good a gun as the Beretta now? Any thoughts?"
I doubt it. If the Taurus was "just as good" as the Beretta, they would sell for the same price. There is no free lunch. Beretta has built up it's reputation based on quailty for the past 500+ years. It is the oldest gun company in the world. Beretta inovates while Taurus copies. There is a HUGE difference in that.
I guess it depends on what you want it for. If you need a serious gun for serious use, you should not try and skimp on quality. It is like all things. There are times when you can get away with buying cheap but not if your life is ever going to depend on it. I work with tools for my job. Sometimes I will buy a cheap wrench if I am only going to need it for one or two uses that are not important. If I plan on keeping the tool for a while and using it, I buy good quality. If the tool is not going to be under any stress, you can go ahead and buy the Chinese knock-off tool.
I rank Beretta as the very best in self defense pistols bar none. I keep a 92fs loaded by my bed. I have a choice of any make or model and the Beretta has proven to be more reliable and a better gun than anything else I have tried. I rank Beretta over Glock, SIG, BHPs, 1911s and everything else. I won't even cross the street to spit on a Taurus after the bad guns I have had. I am not interested in Taurus when the real deal can be had.
July 3, 2006, 11:45 AM
Is the Beretta M9 as good as the Taurus PT92? :neener:
July 3, 2006, 12:12 PM
I've handled a Beretta 92FS and a Taurus togther, side by side, and couldn't tell any significant difference in fit or finish
While the Taurus does shoot fine, there is a world of difference in fit and finish. you can see it, you can feel it and you definitely notice when you rack the slide or pull the trigger. The Beretta is far smoother. A buddy of mine bought a PT92 a couple years ago, using the "its the same gun" argument. Then he came over and played with my 92 FS and quickly wished he'd spent the extra $200.
Taurus does make some good firearms (I have a PT145, definitely in a class by itself), but if a model 92 is what a person wants, they will be happier with the Beretta.
July 3, 2006, 12:16 PM
I have a personal Beretta 92F and like it, on the job I carry an M9 (Beretta 92FS). I attended an armorers course at Beretta 2 years ago and according to them the Taurus uses the old original design for the Beretta. Beretta sold it to them after Beretta made some refinements to the design for the military. Both are good but I like my Beretta.
July 3, 2006, 12:59 PM
I think everyone is here is spot on. I prefer the Beretta myself.. :)
July 3, 2006, 03:01 PM
I've always liked the Taurus safety set up better than the Beretta. I don't like Taurus mod to include a hammer drop feature in the safety. I wish they would've retained the original design requested by Brazil. I've been trying to track down a NIB original style PT92, but so far no luck.
July 3, 2006, 03:07 PM
Like Black Knight said, Taurus uses the old original design (safety on the frame instead of the slide) and I prefer it. I preferred the frame mounted safety of the "older" Taurus' where it was only a safety instead of a hammer drop as well but I would still pick the Taurus over the Beretta today.
The way I heard it was that Taurus took over a Beretta plant that was left in Brazil after fulfilling a contract for the Brazilian military...same equipment making the same pistol but with the Taurus name....that was a long time ago and both pistols have evolved since then...I had one of the "older" designed Taurus' for several years and liked it very much, after I got into 1911s I sold it to a good friend who became my Sheriff later on ... he's had it about 11 years now and won't let it go, it just sits in reserve to his 1911 these days!
Taurus has the lifetime repair policy on all of their firearms and will stand behind them no matter how old it is or who owns it.
The fellow I purchased the PT92 from was a big time reloader and bullet molder and shooter and had fired several thousand rds thru the pistol and had the locking block crack....he called Taurus and they said send it in, he got them to just send him the new locking block and he put it in himself and it's still going today. When I owned it, I got my gunsmith Uncle to help me smooth the action a little and may have changed a spring, but I remember that careful polishing in the right places is what made all the difference in the smoothness of the action.
IF I had to pick one or the other I'd go with the Taurus, of course, YMMV...:)
July 3, 2006, 04:46 PM
The way I heard it was that Taurus took over a Beretta plant that was left in Brazil after fulfilling a contract for the Brazilian military...same equipment making the same pistol but with the Taurus name
That's the same story I heard. My Dad has a PT99 (same thing but adjustable sights) and it's been extremely reliable. I haven't shot a Beretta 92 though so I can't say if the Beretta is worth the couple hundred bucks more.
July 3, 2006, 06:58 PM
Tauri seem to be nice values. I've had two over the years and still have the revolver. I have had issues w/ their sights & their triggers but all in all, they are okay.
Now, I have 4 Berettas in various sizes and one of their shotguns. I have had no issue w/ their guns after shooting 1000's of rounds from my 92fs' or 100's of rounds throuh my year old shotgun :D
My advice, if you want a Beretta, get one...dont' settle! ;)
July 4, 2006, 12:33 AM
I have a Beretta 92f, a Taurus PT92 old safety style. Both are good shooters and extreemly reliable. The Beretta has a better finish and smoother out of the box trigger and is a tad more accurate but that may be just the difference in trigger. In functionality both brands are even IMO. The Taurus has been shot more over the years and is used more as a travel and car carry pistol mainly because if its lost, stolen or confiscated I'd be less annoyed than if the same happened to the Beretta.
The Taurus 92 is a good value and I have no reservation endorsing it as a good pistol for friends who want a semi auto 9mm but don't want to spend a lot of money on it.
July 4, 2006, 02:39 AM
I hate the m-9. It doesnt fit my hand, the ones we have are beat to hell. Id rather have the m11 ( P228). Well, actually Id rather have a 1911, but hey, who are we kidding right now. damn you nine milliwiener. :cool:
July 4, 2006, 03:21 AM
I think the Taurus is a good gun, but I dont think it is as good as a Beretta. The Beretta has a better fit and finish, a smoother action, a better trigger, and I think its more accurate.
A friend had the .40 Taurus and it was a good gun. It was accurate, reliable, and had a mild recoil.
If someone were to give me a Taurus, I wouldnt turn them down. But, if I were spending my own money, it would definitly be the Beretta.
July 4, 2006, 05:21 AM
I hate the m-9. It doesnt fit my hand, the ones we have are beat to hell. Id rather have the m11 ( P228). Well, actually Id rather have a 1911, but hey, who are we kidding right now. damn you nine milliwiener.Getting some typing exercise? :rolleyes:
July 4, 2006, 11:22 AM
Taurus origionally liscensed built Model 92's for the Brazillian Military under contract on Baretta machinery. It was the requirment from the Brazillian Government to procure the Baretta's. When the contract was completed, the machinery was purchased by someone there, and Taurus, already a manufacturer of hand guns (although low quality then), started making an older design of the 92 that did not have a decocker, only a frame mounted safety. Cocked and locked, or manually dropping the hammer like a 1911 were the options. Talk about careful gun handling techniques!
Fit and finish are nice on both the Baretta and the Taurus. Yes, holding the current decocker down will tie up the Taurus, but not flicking the not so well positioned safety on the Baretta will tie the pistol up too. ANYTHING can be made to fail ('cept my Glocks:neener: ), so practice with the weapon you choose to use is important.
I used to own a PT99AF Taurus, and a Baretta 92 is in the safe right now. I would not feel under armed with either.
July 4, 2006, 11:45 AM
I fired both 92FS and the T:what: aurus at the range. They both shot true, but I perfered the 92FS trigger. The Taurus left my trigger finger feeling numb. Vibrations? who knows, could have just been that gun; however, I would take the Beretta anyday!
July 4, 2006, 01:13 PM
I think their way to big for caliber and outdated. I have a stainless TP-92 AR that had about a 150 rounds fired thru it . Less than 25 by me. I'll stay with my 1911 and the PT-92 can stay in box . If SHTF I'll trade it for a woman.:D She would be of more use.
July 4, 2006, 02:58 PM
"I hate the m-9. It doesnt fit my hand, the ones we have are beat to hell. Id rather have the m11 ( P228). Well, actually Id rather have a 1911, but hey, who are we kidding right now. damn you nine milliwiener. "
That response added nothing to the conversation. All it did was make you look like a idiot. Congrats!
Anyway, I too prefer the frame mounted safety/decock but that alone is not going to make me buy a Taurus. I wish Beretta would go to a de-cock only on there pistols ala SIG and mount it on the frame ala SIG. SIG really has the best controls. De-cock only mounted on the frame where it is out of the way and easy to reach. Too bad SIGs don't fit my hand as well and are not as reliable as Beretta.
July 4, 2006, 04:11 PM
Like others posted the original Beretta Brazil contract was for a modified 92, with the cocked and locked feature. The contract also required Beretta to set up a factory in Brazil. When the contract was up, Forjas Taurus then bought the factory under the condition that they couldn't sell outside Brazil for 10 years. Taurus later incorporated the 92S-1 mag release. To gain greater market share Taurus designed the 3 position safety, locked, hammer drop and cocked and locked.
I'm looking for a NIB PT 92 with the original safety design and the 92S-1 style mag release. IMHO these are the best of the lot. So far I haven't been able to find one at a reasonable price.:banghead:
July 5, 2006, 10:29 AM
Nightcrawler: In my view the Taurus PT92 is a rip off the Beretta and thats why a new Beretta 92fs is $550.00 Beretta needs to sue Taurus for copy right infringement and along with all the company's who Taurus ripped off. Same thing for EAA for the rip-off of the CZ-75. When I saw Shooting Gallery give Taurus a award I yelled at my TV sure the 24/7 is there own design but when I think Taurus I think bastard pistol and rifle company.
My view's in this replay are Fact and opinion
July 5, 2006, 12:12 PM
By that same definition, Springfield Armory, Kimber, and lord knows how many others are just ripping off Colt. And let's not get into AR-15 manufacturers!
Taurus bought the rights to produce Beretta clones fair and square. Can't hold it against them for doing so.
Someone previously said that Beretta was an innovator...well, as of late, it seems they've stopped innovating. Until very recently, they had few new designs, and some of their attempts to improve current ones (like the Vertec) didn't fly.
Their PX4 pistol is an attempt to take back a share of the LE market. It's a pretty standard Cop Gun; plastic, ugly, mushy striker-fired or striker-esque trigger (on one version, at least).
I think they should just update the Beretta 92. Imagine a Beretta 92 with interchangable (alloy, not plastic) backstraps, a frame mounted safety (cocked & locked, or manual decock) or a frame mounted decocker, mounting rail, etc. Expand the magazine, see if you can't cram 18 or 19 rounds in there without it sticking out too far. Make the pistol hold a lot of rounds for being so big. Could probably get 12 or 13 in the .40 version. Beefed up Brigadier slide.
That'd be a nice pistol, and it'd be competitive for what the LE market wants these days.
July 5, 2006, 12:14 PM
Taurus never said that they didn't copy the Beretta 92. As a matter of fact, that story about them buying the Beretta plant in Brazil is true- the early PT92 was a carbon copy of what Beretta themselves churned out on the same tooling in the same building.
Beretta considered Taurus' purchase of the plant as being better than shutting the plant down and removing the tooling. No royalties were ever required, nor were they requested (at least in the original transaction, I have no knowledge of anything that happened later, but Taurus has never paid any).
Methinks Beretta decided that those who were looking for a Beretta wouldn't buy something from Brazil, so their margins were in no danger. I would bet that over the years, they have been proven right- precious few sales were lost, and over time, the people who bought a PT92 may have decided to go get a "real" 92F.
July 5, 2006, 01:05 PM
Tons of misinformation folks, Forjas Taurus bought the plant and paid for the rights to manufacture a 92 clone. They paid roylaties and couldn't sell outside Brazil for 10 years. The patent on the 92 and 92S-1 have long since expired, if Norinco wanted they could start manfacturing them tomorrow and Beretta couldn't do squat.
As for Beretta losing precious few sales, that has nothing to do with it. Taurus' frame mounted safety and cocked and locked feature isn't offered by Beretta. It's not just people looking for a better bargain that buy Taurus, it's also people that dislike the Beretta's slide mounted safety.
July 5, 2006, 03:00 PM
The stuff I posted (other than that which was my own opinion) was found through a brief internet search. Part of it was via a PT92 review on Taurus' own website.
But it doesn't really matter to me either way; I'm not interested in a 92F or PT92.
July 5, 2006, 10:31 PM
The decision to go with a Beretta or a Taurus probably comes down to your wallet and YOUR gut feeling. If you really want the Beretta, get the Beretta. If you buy the Taurus you may, in time, question that decision -- I call it Beretta envy. I own a Taurus PT92 and a PT99. Still, I would not dissuade you from the Beretta purchase. If the $200 difference means that much to you, then the decision is made. I don't think you can go wrong with either pistol. I may, in time, buy a Beretta. Not because I need it, but to scratch that itch. The 92 platform is large for my hand, but it is very soft shooting, and extremely reliable. I used my PT92 for my CCW course because it was THE most reliable pistol I owned at the time AND I shot it well. I do prefer the frame-mounted controls. I can reach them with my thumb, whereas I have to change my grip to reach the slide mounted safety/decocker on the Beretta (small hands). It would be nice to say shoot both and make a decision, but in my neck of the woods it's the Taurus in the rental case not the Beretta. Same for the sale case, the Beretta in on the top shelf, and the Taurus is on the second shelf. It's easy to guess which one has the higher profit margin. Either way you'll end up with an excellent pistol. Just try not to second guess yourself. :)
July 6, 2006, 01:02 AM
Just to clear things up a bit.
Like others posted the original Beretta Brazil contract was for a modified 92, with the cocked and locked feature.
At the time of the sale of the Beretta factory to Brazil,there was only one model of Beretta 92 and it was a frame mounted safety with that you could carry cocked and locked.No special modifications were needed to fulfill the contract.The Brazillian plant was pretty much like BUSA is today.It was run by the mother company,using their machines,engineers, and staffed by Brazillian workers.When the contract ended,Beretta "sold" the plant and plans to the 92 to Mr.Taurus.The mother company had already began design and development on the 92S in Italy so the old machinery and plans for the old 92 was not worth shipping all back home.
Layman's terms: The Studabaker Wagon Company giving the plans and woodworking tools to the Rideright Buggywhip Company. Who needed wagons when automobiles were now available? :neener:
July 6, 2006, 01:53 AM
At the time of the sale of the Beretta factory to Brazil,there was only one model of Beretta 92 and it was a frame mounted safety with that you could carry cocked and locked.No special modifications were needed to fulfill the contract.
You're correct. Thanks for pointing out the error.
July 6, 2006, 09:53 AM
Nightcrawler, Beretta seems to be updating the 92, with something called the "90two". Alloy frame, interchangeable grip units (although not alloy, as far as I can tell), high-cap (17 rds 9mm; 12 rds .40), etc. If you had not seen it yet, you can look at the website at www.beretta90two.com.
Granted, it looks a little like the Px4 with the spacey styling on the grip and frame, but...well, there it is. I think it looks pretty good. One day I may just own one.
July 7, 2006, 02:23 AM
I have both a Beretta and a PT92. The Beretta is an Elite so it really is not fair to compare it to the PT92. The trigger was worked over by Ernest Langdon. It's a work of art. It is also a G model which means it is a decock only. I had Mr. Langdon install a short trigger on it. The reach for the DA pull and the big grip made the gun difficult for me to shoot well at first.
Now having said all that I must say I love my PT92. It has a better trigger from the box than the Beretta. I got a two tone for $250.00 less than the basic Beretta. It has close to 4000 rounds through it now without a single malfunction. It is very accurate. And I much, and I mean much prefer the frame mounted safety with the cocked and locked option. Cocked and locked changes the whole nature of the big pistol. It makes the trigger reach quite managable for almost any sized hand. Plus t has 17+1 rounds of ammo. And unlike Beretta it is still using all metal parts. If you must have a Beretta buy one. It does have a slightly nicer finish than the Taurus. But that has not made it one bit more reliable or accurate. I trust my life to this gun with no problems.
July 8, 2006, 02:45 PM
FIRST AND FORMOST THE TAURUS IS AS EVERY BIT AS GOOD AS THE BERRETA AND SECOND THEY DID NOT STEAL OR RIP ANYONE OFF THE FACT IS THAT BERRETA OWNED TAURUS AT ONE TIME AND WHEN THEY DECIDED TO INVEST MORE MONEY INTO THE BERRETTA DESIGN THAN THE TAURUS THIRD THE REASON TAURUS GUNS ARE LESS EXPENSIVE IS BEACAUSE THEY :banghead: :fire: BUILD EVERYTHING IN HOUSE AND NOT USE OUTSIDE SUPPLIERS FOR THEIR PARTS CASE IN POINT THEIR NEW 1911 45 IS ALL BUILT IN HOUSE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE HIENE SIGHTS COMPARE $500.00 TAXES INCLUDED FOR THE TAURUS AS COMPARED TO SAY S&W OR EVEN KIMBER WHICH I THINK ARE VERY OVER PRICED JMHO:neener: :banghead:
July 8, 2006, 05:46 PM
Having owned both the PT92 and a Beretta Brig both in 9mm, if I were to buy again, I would get the Taurus for the way the safety works. I had 0 malfunctions of any kind in both. I'll agree that the finish on the Beretta is much more refined, but when it comes to shooting rounds, reliably and accurately, they run neck and neck. I think much of the Taurus criticism comes from the other pistol/revolver product lines (which do have issues). Mike
July 8, 2006, 06:48 PM
I prefer frame-mounted safeties and would've purchased the PT92. The only I reason I didn't is that I found a used Beretta 92 Brig. SS first.
July 8, 2006, 08:03 PM
I've owned the 92, the 100, and several types revolvers in different calibers. My Intratec AB10 hits more consistantly than any Taurus. I don't have to tell you about Intratec, I'm sure you've read. I prefer my AB10 to the PT92 hands down for accuracy, feeding etc. If I were going to buy a Beretta type pistol...It would be a Beretta...period. Taurus isn't worth their weight in scrap metal...any of them. Interesting note...I couldn't fire hand loaded 115grHP with out jamming in the PT92, my AB10 eats them up and asks for more (maybe I got lucky and got an AB10 that actually works).:uhoh:
July 9, 2006, 12:00 AM
BERRETA OWNED TAURUS AT ONE TIME AND WHEN THEY DECIDED TO INVEST MORE MONEY INTO THE BERRETTA DESIGN THAN THE TAURUSIncorrect.THE REASON TAURUS GUNS ARE LESS EXPENSIVE IS BEACAUSE THEY BUILD EVERYTHING IN HOUSE AND NOT USE OUTSIDE SUPPLIERS FOR THEIR PARTSAlso incorrect.
July 9, 2006, 12:29 AM
Whew..........there's a lot of misinformation here. I had a big friggin' post prepared with the history of Taurus etc..........but I lost it in a power drop and nobody cares enough.
Suffice to say, I've owned and shot multiple examples of each.....I'll take the Taurus.
Taurus has a lifetime warranty.......say what you will about their customer service, they'll fix it.
Taurus has better/more progressive metalurgy......at least historically.
Taurus has stuck closer to the origional design.
Taurus is less expensive.
The safety is in the right place, I've never accidentally disabled my weapon by using it. If you are worried about that, switch the grips to the AF grips that will disable the decock feature.
Taurus does not have the chromed barrel that Beretta has. But we don't shoot corrosive ammo do we?
I cannot carry a Taurus with any PD I know of.....except south of the border.
Beretta USA is a US business concern, not the same as Beretta Italy.
Taurus used to make Beretta's under license, kind of like Beretta USA does now.
It was observed then, as now, that the superior Beretta's are the Italian made ones. The American and Taurus (Brazil) one's are neck and neck.
The Beretta is a bit tighter in fit and finish....but not by a huge margin.
Compare the price of a Taurus against other weapons of that price range and they simply blow the competition away.
The Taurus 92 and Beretta 92 are a proven design that have been around for a few decades and both perform well.
July 9, 2006, 12:46 AM
Well, I guess it is descided then. Buy a Glock!:D :what: :D :banghead: :D :scrutiny:
July 10, 2006, 04:44 PM
I have the Taurus and have shot approx. 2,000 rounds through it. not one jam or misfire. However, the range owner says I am one of the lucky ones who actually got a decent Taurus.
There is a difference in fit and finish for sure. It is pretty accurate too and I would / do trust my life with it but I'll take my 1911 that may grandfather gave me from WW2 anyday over the Taurus.
July 10, 2006, 07:59 PM
please tell me or us what was incorrect about taurus building all thier parts in house this may not have been true years ago but i know on the new 1911 45 they have that every part of that gun was built in house with the exception of the heine sights if i am wrong please explain.. Thanks for any info :neener:
July 10, 2006, 11:09 PM
I didn't say they don't build all their parts in house. They may or they may not--I don't know.
But I do know that is not why they are less expensive. Taurus guns are less expensive because they are manufactured in Brazil where the labor costs are MUCH reduced compared to Italy or the U.S.
July 11, 2006, 02:39 AM
Always an interesting debate. I own a PT-92 AFS-D purchased new in late 1991 (when Taurus first started the decocker models). Back then, the bluing was good and the flats of the slides highly polished. This PT-92 has seen many, many thousands of rounds through it. Changed the recoil springs only once (not because anything wasn't working well, just because it seemed like the time to do so). My Taurus is as accurate, or more accurate, than two of my three Beretta 92FS pistols and easily as reliable.
As one who came up in the autopistol world on the 1911, I also much prefer Taurus' intelligent safety system. Without the recurved frontstrap, the grip of the PT-92 is also slightly smaller in girth. Although I really love my Berettas, I actually shoot my Taurus more often, and its value in my collection holds as much esteem as my Berettas.
However, the range owner says I am one of the lucky ones who actually got a decent Taurus. Statements such as this are just so much bull. I made a living for 26 years carrying 1911s and the M-9; I think I know my autopistols by now (although my current employer issues me an HK). The PT-92 is not only an exceptionally reliable autopistol (mine is going on 15 years old, heavily used, and never once malfunctioned), it's one of the best values out there. Plus, it's a pretty good-lookin' piece in its own right.
July 11, 2006, 03:19 AM
I like buying from family businesses that have been working on their craft for 500 years.
I like Italy and Italian food and style (the american ones are made in maryland, tauruses all come from brazil)
I like the history and notoriaty of the Beretta 92, the taurus is similar but won't satisfy.
July 11, 2006, 12:30 PM
Beretta vs. Taurus:
Have both, 92 Beretta and PT92/PT100. PT100(.40S&W) is the more accurate and it was a second had purchase. Still shoots great. As for the 9mm 92 and PT92, the Taurus is more accirate. Beretta is still a good gun and I would feel comfortable using it for self defense. Hear noise that army wants a new gun in .45 and don't like Beretta 9mm, have heard this many times before and now again, is there something about the Beretta? A bit more accurate are my CZs. Taurus just dosn't have the name as Beretta and therefore can charge more. Remember, both guns are made on Beretta machines.
July 11, 2006, 02:09 PM
Everyone would do well to realize that Taurus does not have the name that Beretta has in NORTH AMERICA!!!
In South America the PT92 is a standard issue sidearm for many military and law enforcement units and has replaced the 1911 much like here.
The irony is, I'll bet nobody is running around trashing Imbel for copying the JMB 1911 frame design, especially since Springfield is marketing them so well........so what's the problem with a Brazillian 9mm?
Just a note of curious fact........Taurus also makes submachine guns and machine pistols for the military and police, I don't know about the quality, but they seem to have maintained a steady govt. contract for South American concerns.
Let's not also forget that the holding company for Taurus and Smith&Wesson used to be the exact same company......so I guess it's safe to say Taurus does NOT copy S&W designs since many of the modern designs are probably derivative of the Bangor Punta concern.
So......just in this short discussion it could be safe to say Taurus has manufactured, shared technology or simply produced parts for Smith & Wesson and Beretta. There are probably more, but thinking of Taurus as a "cheap knockoff copy" is short sighted and lacks business and global perspective.
I wasn't going to toss anectdotal evidence out there, but since everyone else is............the range I go to has 3 Beretta 92s which are popular rentals, yet they always break and the range guys HATE them. The Taurus on the other hand seems to be a winner in their opinion. But what's that worth?
July 11, 2006, 03:37 PM
The Taurus on the other hand seems to be a winner in their opinion. But what's that worth?a roll of my eyes :rolleyes: perhaps the Taurus is just used less often.
Taurus also makes submachine guns and machine pistols for the military and police, I don't know about the quality, but they seem to have maintained a steady govt. contract for South American concerns.yes the brazilian police use imbel and taurus products, it just means the government wants to be uncompetitive socialists and keep their money in brazil. France has done the same in the past, in fact the Browning Hi-Power lost in competition with one of their French pistols the Mle 1935.
In South America the PT92 is a standard issue sidearm for many military and law enforcement units and has replaced the 1911 much like here.The Brazilians use both the Beretta 92, PT92 and a 9mm doublestack 1911, look it up.
The irony is, I'll bet nobody is running around trashing Imbel for copying the JMB 1911 frame design, especially since Springfield is marketing them so well........so what's the problem with a Brazillian 9mm?Springfield has an american flag waving image, they really don't want you to know their 1911 parts are from brazil and their XDs are from Croatia. Even so it's probably more acceptable because the 1911 has been around a long time and Colt doesn't make a competitive product anymore.
January 28, 2007, 02:42 PM
I use to own a Beretta 92FS which I sold,and I now own a Taurus PT99 AFS which I prefere way more.I like the frame mounted safety over the slide mounted which I hate,and I find mine shoots just as good,and fit&finish are beautiful on my Taurus.I stopped carrying my Glock 23 and now have been carrying my Taurus PT99.Of course when the summer comes around I will go back to my G23 because of it's size which I can conceal in a IWB holster.I picked mine up last week for $300.00 with 1 15rnd mag in mint condition.
I put 200rnds through her at the range and I just tore a hole through the center of my target with her,and I was able to get realy fast accurate follow up shots,much faster then I do with my G23.I would buy this pistol again in a heart beat if I didn't have one.I'm going to stock up on some hi caps at the next gun show in March.
January 28, 2007, 09:20 PM
Wow some of you dude's hate Taurus. Screw you guys!
Not for bashing Taurus(I could care less) not for saying it's a crappy rip off, but for defending a company or companies that'll charge more for the same product.
Look at the new Stroger Cougar half the price of the original. You think about that crap as I save my money.
If it wasn't for a snewdy gun business the S&W Sigma would be a cheaper Glock. Instead of what it was turned into.
Back in the day would you rather of bought a Mitsubishi Eclipse or a Eagle Talon.(I know neither, but for argument sake) mind you there literally the same car with different badging. I'd of saved a few grand and felt darn good about it.
Stephen A. Camp
January 28, 2007, 09:27 PM
Some people like them; some don't, but "screw you guys" is not acceptable at this site.
If you enjoyed reading about "Taurus PT92 vs Beretta 92" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!